Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Gresham Barrett and the politics of TARP

1. South Carolina Rep. Gresham Barrett (R), who is running in the June 8 Republican gubernatorial race has launched a 60-second ad seeking to explain his 2008 vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- yet more evidence that the vote to bail out the financial sector is the central issue in the minds of many GOP primary voters.

In the commercial, Barrett paints the atmosphere around passage of the bill as one of crisis. Speaking directly to the camera, Barrett says: "I honestly believe with all my heart that we were at a point that men and women were going to reach in their back pocket, pull out a credit card or an ATM card, stick it into a machine and nothing was going to come out," he says.

He adds that "as a leader I made a decision" to support TARP but adds that the legislation was poorly implemented. The ad was produced by Heath Thompson of Scott Howell & Associates.

"The bottom line is that the Bush administration bailout vote is huge problem among Republicans," said one Barrett adviser. "But failing to distinguish it for Republican voters from what Obama has done is absolutely fatal."

Barrett is not alone in struggling to explain his vote for TARP in the context of a Republican primary fight. Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison watched her gubernatorial ambitions disappear as Gov. Rick Perry successfully labeled her "Kay Bailout" in advance of their March 2 Republican primary race. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett wasn't able to win his party nomination at the state convention a few weeks back due, in large part, to his vote for TARP.

(Interestingly, the issue has bypassed some Republicans in primary fights. Arkansas Rep. John Boozman cruised to a primary victory on May 18 despite the fact that one of his opponents -- state Sen. Gilbert Baker -- carried around a tarp -- get it? -- to highlight the Congressman's vote for the legislation.)

Barrett's ad is clearly a gamble in the four-way contest that also features state Rep. Nikki Haley, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and state Attorney General Henry McMaster.

It's also an acknowledgment that to win he has to convince voters that his TARP vote was only part of a broader approach to leadership he has adopted during his congressional tenure. (Barrett notes at the start of the ad that only one other House member has opposed President Obama's agenda more than he has.)

Because of South Carolina's primacy in the 2012 Republican nominating process -- the party's nominee has won the the Palmetto State in every primary since the state moved to the front of the nominating calendar -- how Barrett's ad plays (or doesn't) should be watched closely by every candidate with an eye on the GOP presidential nod.

2. The Alliance for America's Future, a third party group, has begun airing television ads in the Florida governor's race against businessman Rick Scott (R) -- bashing him for his role in the 1990s Columbia/HCA Medicare fraud scandal.

"Rick Scott profited from the largest Medicare fraud scheme in American history," the ad's narrator says. The 30-second spot also features footage from a CNN interview in which host Rick Sanchez tells the candidate, "Columbia Hospital Corporation, which you founded, was charged with defrauding the government for more than a decade and had to pay a record fine of $1.7 billion." Scott was booted from the firm before it settled the fraud charges with the government, and state Attorney General Bill McCollum's (R) campaign has recently begun taking aim at Scott for his role in the scandal.

An Ipsos poll conducted for the St. Petersburg Times (among other media outlets) released this week showed McCollum with a comfortable 46 percent to 22 percent lead over Scott in the GOP primary. But Scott, a billionaire who has been positioning himself as the "conservative outsider" in the race, has money -- not an insignificant thing in a state as expensive in which to run for office as Florida -- on his side.

Scott has spent nearly $8 million on TV ads since mid-April, while McCollum spent just $170,000 in the same period.

The Alliance for America's Future ads are designed to level the financial playing field, The group, a Virginia-based organization, is led by GOP consultant Barry Bennett, a former chief of staff to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio). Former Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary Cheney, and his former political director, Kara Ahern, are also reportedly involved in the group.

Patrick took 42 percent to 29 percent for Baker and 14 percent for Cahill in the survey. Since a February Suffolk poll, Patrick has solidified his standing -- he led by eight in that poll -- thanks in large part to a seven-figure expenditure from the Republican Governors Association that slammed Cahill and led to a precipitous nine-point drop between polls from the former Democrat.

Despite Patrick's rise of late, Republican strategists believe they have accomplished their desired goal -- damage Cahill to the point that the race is a two-person affair between the incumbent and Baker. Such a face-off, Republicans believe, will eventually go their way as Patrick remains mired in the low 40s in the ballot test.

Baker remains, for many voters, an unknown commodity. Thirty-one percent of respondents had never heard of the Republican nominee, and 32 percent of respondents were undecided about whether they would support him.

4. New York Rep. Vito Fossella's political comeback is going to have to wait for another election cycle.

Two years after departing Congress following a drunk driving arrest led to revelations that the married congressman fathered a child with another woman, Fossella toyed with the idea of seeking his old seat -- running against Rep. Mike McMahon (D) this fall. Fossella was even endorsed over two other candidates by the Staten Island Republican executive committee last week.

On Wednesday, though, Fossella said he's not ready to return to public life. "I am frankly at a very good place in my life," Fossella said, according to the New York Daily News. "I am where I need to be and where I want to be, most importantly. And as a result I've indicated to the chairman of the party that I would not seek election to Congress this year."

Fossella did not rule out future runs for office, however. He is mentioned as a contender for Staten Island Borough President in 2013.

While local Republicans have pushed hard for Fossella to come back, national Republicans feel optimistic about the chances of former FBI agent Mike Grimm and businessman Michael Allegretti, who are both a part of the National Republican Congressional Committee's Young Guns program. The two will face off in a Sept. 14 primary.

5. South Carolina state Rep. Tim Scott has pulled ahead of the field in the open seat 1st district Republican primary race, according to a new Club for Growth poll.

The Club, which has endorsed Scott in the race to replace retiring Rep. Henry Brown (R), showed Scott taking 30 percent of the vote while businessman Carroll "Tumpy" Campbell (R), the son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell (R), placed second with 10 percent. Attorney Paul Thurmond (R), the son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R), and accountant Clark Parker (R) received 9 percent each. Five other competitors were in the single-digits.

The poll -- conducted by National Research -- also showed Scott winning 53 percent to 28 percent against Campbell and 55 percent to 19 percent against Thurmond in the likely event of a runoff. The primary is set for June 8 and, if no candidate gets 50 percent, the runoff will be two weeks later.

Two weeks ago, Scott went up with his first TV ad, which touts him as a job-creator and opponent of earmarks who also wrote the "first state bill to reject Obama Health care."

Scott, who had previously been running for lieutenant governor, switched over to the House race in February. He is one of a handful of black Republicans seeking federal office this year.

The district, which covers the coastal area from Myrtle Beach to Charleston, is generally safe Republican territory. It voted 56 percent for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 and 61 percent for George W. Bush in 2004. It also has the distinction of being the House seat held by disgraced Gov. Mark Sanford (R) from 1996 until 2002.

bsimon wrote: 37th&O asks a reasonable question
"Why is it that the TARP issue is mainly an issue with the Republicans and the right - and the left just doesn't seem to be that concerned with it?"
-------------------------------------
I am a liberal who does not have an argument with TARP. When the financial system teetered in 2008 (under Bush), I believed that it was teetering. Or, at least, the possibility of a global collapse was real enough to justify drastic action. I may vote Democratic, but I'm not so stupid that I won't believe President Bush when he said the system could crater.

I suspect that people who oppose TARP either do not believe the system was cratering, or they don't understand the implications of a global collapse.

If it is the former, than a lot of Republicans are calling their President, GW, a liar.

If it is the later, than a lot of Republicans need a course in common sense. Trying to save money in the face of a systemic collapse, is like trying to keep the deckchairs organized while the Titanic was sinking.

BTW, I know some people on the left who oppose TARP, so it's not all Republicans.

All the conspiracy theories about wanting to preserve the well for future production are technically wrong and ignore that NOBODY in the industry benefits from this gusher continuing. "

Posted by: drindl | May 27, 2010 10:14 AM
------------------------------------
I can't tell you how much I agree with this statement. I have never been able to understand why people think that being passionate is a substitute for being effective. Probably my business experience, but setting your hair on fire may be good theater but it doesn't compare with getting the job done.

Without defending BP's actions in creating the gusher, we are stuck with BP as effecting the solution. There is NO ONE else who has the expertise to cap this well, as much as we might want God Almighty to come down and cap it. BP is drawing on the expertise of the whole industry in shutting this well down.

BP has all the incentive--their executives are betting their own net worth and reputation, and the net worth of the company on capping this well. The awful truth is that NO ONE knows what will work for sure.

I'm not for protecting BP from the consequences of this gusher. If they go under, so be it.

Republicans DO forget that they voted to support TARP. That TARP was necessary because of the irresponsible and ideological push to de-regulate and "get the government off the backs" of Corporate America.

An elephant with a driver on top can do useful work and be harnessed for good. You get a herd of elephants running around it's a stampede and causes huge amounts of damage. Republicans want the minders off the backs of the elephants and we've seen over and over what happens.

Livid over bank bailouts and are unforgivable. It's not about the whole system freezing up, its that it had to happen that makes me livid. Bush and zero idea of what's going on just spending, spending, spending on a war with no purpose. Paulson it appears either had no idea or looked the other way. Never will accept the bank bailouts.
For Obama...I'm not sure he had or has much choice. Bush absolutely killed America and I don't know that anyone will ever be able to fix it. I'm confident it would not have been McCain. The "fundamentals of the economy are good" as the Dow tanked is evidence of that. Mitt might have done better but he's tied to corporate $$ too.

37th&O asks a reasonable question
"Why is it that the TARP issue is mainly an issue with the Republicans and the right - and the left just doesn't seem to be that concerned with it?"

I'd expand your question to include not only those on the 'left', but those in the middle too. Of course, to the right, they're all leftists, so we can ignore the nuance of that distinction.

As far as the answer goes, I'll try to explain using words and concepts you can understand: Sometimes fixing problems requires doing something you don't want to do. For instance, on Tuesday night my 13 month old puked all over himself and his bed. I don't particularly care for the job of cleaning that mess up, but I know that if I don't, the problem will get worse. So I cleaned it up. He puked again an hour later. Did I leave him in the mess this time, knowing how horrible the cleanup job is? Of course not, I cleaned up the mess again. The economy was a screaming baby, laying in a puddle of its own vomit, and the responsible adults stepped up to clean up the mess. The baby isn't back to being his old self yet, but we're on the way. If he pukes again, someone will have to clean it up again. Others will whine about the smell, and how they can't handle touching the puke or throwing the sheets in the washing machine, but its a job that has to be done. The right are the selfish fools who think they're better off ignoring the problem & letting it fester on its own, that it will miraculously fix itself.

Don't you get tired of spewing the same sewage day in and day out, zouk? We all are certainly tired of it.

From an oilfield expert in Houston:

"First, BP is not tackling this mess alone. The entire drilling industry is involved, including Exxon (who has a great record when it comes to offshore drilling, not oil shipping). It's not like only BP engineers are calling the shots, all sorts of experts are involved.

At BP's West Houston complex, there's a command center filled with personnel from around the industry working with BP engineers. Several drill ships are in place. Tons of workboats are on site. There are 5 or more ROVs roaming the wellhead monitoring and cleaning things up. They're already bumping into each other because they normally work solo while tied to a ship by a mile long umbilical cable. They don't need more ROVs down there adding to the traffic. All these efforts are reported heavily in the Houston Chronicle and nola.com, but doesn't seem to get much for national coverage. If you only monitor the national coverage, you'd think BP is going it alone while we all sit by, but the reality is this is an industry-wide effort because we all know what's at stake.

On having Obama "do more," WTF is he supposed to do? Everybody seems to be calling for more fire in his belly and scary, threatening speeches. What does that accomplish? It's like people want him to do a dramatic speech like post-9/11 about bringing the criminals to justice. It does nothing to actually plug the damn well. The government does not have the expertise to do more to stop this gusher. It's in BPs interest to stop the gusher. All the conspiracy theories about wanting to preserve the well for future production are technically wrong and ignore that NOBODY in the industry benefits from this gusher continuing. "

Sue Lowden should just quit and get it over with... terrible, terrible candidate.

"Nevada Senate candidate Sue Lowden (R) refused to respond to questions yesterday about whether she thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should apply to private businesses, a question that has gotten Rand Paul into some trouble recently.

On Face To Face, a political talk show in Las Vegas, host Jon Ralston asked Lowden for her views on the Civil Rights Act.

"I think you want to change the subject from what's really happening here," Lowden responded, according to Politico. "Nobody's asking that question, Jon."

Newt Gingrich recently sat down with fivethirtyeight.com for an interview promoting his new book To Save America in which he argues that America is being taken over by a “secular socialist machine.” Fivethirtyeight’s Tom Schaller asked about the 2008 bank bailouts, noting that some have called it a form of “corporate socialism.” In response, Gingrich attacked the Bush bailout and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for implementing it.

Later in the interview, Schaller asked Gingrich what he thinks of President Bush, “under whom the first $3 trillion budget and first $1 trillion deficit was passed.” This time, Gingrich had some very different things to say about the bailouts. The former Speaker defended Bush’s tenure, adding that he had no choice but to push taxpayer money on the nation’s largest banks:

GINGRICH: And then I think when the crisis hit in the fall of 2008 everybody panicked. Candidly, there was a period there when you had the Federal Reserve chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury saying, “If we don’t do X, Y and Z, the entire world economy is going to collapse.” That’s pretty good grounds for stopping and trying to do something. It’s easy for people to say, “Well, I’d rather have risked a world depression.” But most of the people I talked to in the private sector at the time were really worried about the system freezing up totally.

So in the very same interview, Gingrich attacks the bailouts to play to the anti-government Tea Party crowd, but later justifies them to defend Bush. "

"The bottom line is that the Bush administration bailout vote is huge problem among Republicans," said one Barrett adviser. "But failing to distinguish it for Republican voters from what Obama has done is absolutely fatal."

There was a crisis atmosphere - the people in Washington were concerned with the elections -

Stopping attention on the elections - Congressional and Presidential - to study the economic crisis intensively for 3 or 4 weeks was just not possible.

In a sense, the crisis hit in the one month in the eight year cycle (with Presidents getting re-elected) that was the worst possible for attention of the people in Washington.

MY MAIN POINT: Initially the government was supposed to buy the "toxic assets" off the banks - these assets were supposedly almost worthless at that point, and they had no buyers - thus weighing down the balance sheets of the banks.

A funny thing then happened.

After Congress passed the money, the banks balked at transferring those assets - believing that those assets were worth holding onto through the crisis.

So how "toxic" were they ?

The program then CHANGED to give the banks LOANS to get them through the difficult period.

The potential windfall for the government for providing the risky liquidity in the crisis which no one else would - that was taken off the table.

Obviously, these assets were complex, and transferring the assets to the government was never as simple as selling them because the portfolios were hedged and balanced in complex ways.

However, the truth is the banks were bankrupt - and the government did NOT deal with them that way.

The banks should have been taken over - and run by the government back to health - that would have allowed the government full control over the compensation issues - and allowed the government to profit from the position the way the public was promised.

Instead, the lobbyists were allowed to change the game - and twist the whole thing around - the GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER IN CHARGE.

Part of this was just the nature of the transistion - Bush was out, Obama wasn't in yet - no one was in charge there - and Congress never stepped up.

The stark reality is the whole TARP was mis-managed and manipulated.

Ironically, it is the Republican voters who are most upset about this - the democrats - perhaps because they are so entranced by Obama - the democrats don't get charged up by this issue.

Bush and Cheney were simply not ready to handle a crisis at that point -

The whole spectacle of having the two presidential candidates at the White House to try to solve a complex problem - with just the political implications important in their minds - was ridiculous.

Bush and Cheney should have taken the leadership - and done a much better job.

Instead, maybe they had already checked-out.

The Iraq war - and the democrats who had voted for the war, then campaigned against it - had taken its toll. Yea, what they did was wear down the administration to the point at which it was not ready to handle the economic crisis in Sept 2008.

Obama's main position on the crisis seems to still be that it is Bush's fault - not whether anything that Bush or Obama did was right - we have a situation in which NO ONE wants to take any responsibility or accountability.

Obama appears most interested in doing something different - something "big" rather than handling the economy correctly.

15 months after the promise of instant jobs from obungler and the liberal porkulus spending binge and jobs still sinking, gdp sluggish, stock market faltering. Liberals are trying to spend more this week. Hundreds of billions more. How about we plug that damn hole.

As a loyal American, I watched in shock and horror for eight years while lemming-like goper legislators marched in lockstep with the Bush-Cheeney administration on even the most heinous legislative initiatives. The pride with which these lemmings jumped off the Bush-Cheeney cliff, and their over-the-top shouts of traitor at Democrats who refused to jump along with them, was startling. The shock today, of course, is that lemmings like Gre shame Barrett don't simply say: "I voted for this legislation because my President, your idol George W. Bush, asked me to." The cowardice of goper legislators during both the Bush-Cheeney years and now in the era of teabag nuttery is a stain that will not easily be removed.

We still have street cars in the older, poorer neighborhoods of Philadelphia, South Philly and West Philly. They seem to run so much more quickly and smoothly (and quietly) than the buses. I think they would be a great addition to the quality of life for car-less citizens in DC, but they are an expensive undertaking.

I visit my sister in Silver Spring, and I see that trolley cars are a hot-button issue there. I'm surprised, because I see them as natural feeders for Metro and a great way to cut some traffic congestion.

Apparently DC at one point had more streetcar lines than any city in the US. Then after the car became more popular they cancelled the streetcars and took down all the overhead lines so that you could have unspoiled views of the monuments. The current plan is to put the lines back in areas that don't have views of the Capitol/Monuments. I live in the H street area and having the Streetcars back will be a tremendous boost to the local economy and will make it significnatly easier for the people who live here to get to work.

We've got our streetcars here in New Orleans as well. It's a nice ride, but doesn't really serve any useful function for me personally. Drivers here co-exist pretty well with the streetcars which is saying a lot considering how godawful people here are at operating motor vehicles.

In Portland we love our streetcars. Both retro and modern, they are almost too quiet (people kept getting hit before they learned to respect something that makes no noise) and the tracks are another thing all the people on bikes in pdx have to deal with. But hey, if they can do it in Amsterdam, they can do it in America.

Sorry for the threadjack, but I figured you all would find this interesting.

Here in DC there has been a big push to reinstate Streetcars for the areas of the city that don't have good subway access. This has resulted in the city building rail lines in an area of the city called the H-street corridor. This is a primarily black district and is one of the "up and coming" areas of town. The City has also bought three streetcars to service this area.

However, we still have to put up overhead powerlines to power the trains, which is being opposed by some people in the more affluent parts of town (ie Georgetown etc). Two nights ago at 2 am Vince Gray, the chairman of the city council and a Mayoral canidate, took 49 million out of the city's budget to fund the powerlines for the trains, basically killing the program. (Mind you we already have the rails and the trains)

There was such a HUGE public response that today he reinstated a large portion of the funding basically putting the program back on track. But, he most likely killed his chances of winning the mayoral election, since Fenty, the current mayor, has gotten a huge boost from Gray's screw-up, and has been a big proponent of the Streetcar plan. Fenty was struggling in part due to the Metro accident last fall and his support for the gay-marriage law that passed recently. He should send Gray a thank you note.

Would "independent neoconservative" be an apt description of The Alliance for America's Future? Clearly, it is NOT "a third party group" and should not be so described. Only after reading that it blew out cash taking sides in the R Primary are we treated to the information that it represents a faction within the GOP.